The Myths Of Graphics Card Performance: Debunked

[Silent_Scone]

The GTX 690s behave differently to the rest of the kepler cards, where they are dual GPU cards they are always going to run hotter than their single GPU stablemates. When they reach 80c they will lose 13mhz of the max possible boost and the same again at 90c but what they won't do is throttle like a 290X when it goes over temp and lose huge amounts of mhz. I quite often see my GTX 690s going over 1250mhz on boost and it is the hottest core (the primary one) running the highest overclock. GTX 690s are designed to run that hot and unlike the 290Xs don't nose dive on the mhz.

I often thought about watercooling my GTX 690s as they were often fighting it out with the top watercooled quad sli GTX 680s on the benches and the few extra mhz would have helped a lot.

Fair enough, TBH going on their ambient temps in the test the whole rig might of been cooking . Might also be a pony review sample they had laying around who knows. And yes, the 290s do like to make it pretty clear they're hitting thermal cap. I very much doubt if the 790 is real that it will top the 690 as the best dual card.

 

[David Bisset]

The article seemed to have an odd attitude to overclocking - assuming people would stick with the default cooling / fan profile while doing it.

Also the section on 'input lag' was terrible, and will confuse many people by not differentiating clearly between lag in a users input to the computer, network lag and lag between a monitor receiving a frame and beginning to render it. Mentioning the monitor response time in there, while relevant, will have also added to confusion as the explanation was so very bad.